The other thing is administrative stuff. Chuck says the university has two functions: teaching and research. I say, he's missing the most important function: providing an "experience" for the student. And I am betting that a lot of salary and program money goes toward this aspect of college. But I admit I have not broken down numbers and can't prove it. But even if research explained costs going up at big research-oriented publics (which would account for tuition at, say, a bowling green state, I'll bet), it wouldn't account for the rising tuition at the large bulk of private colleges in the country, which are also terribly expensive, but do not have health technicians commanding six-figure salaries as faculty, and do not have any research program worth noting. When you throw in athletics, especially at the smaller colleges (and iirc football especially is quite expensive, but again, maybe I'm just wrong about that), it adds up to research not really being the culprit.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Dennis Claxton <ddclaxton at earthlink.net>wrote:
> At 10:05 AM 3/10/2010, Carrol Cox wrote:
>
>
> But any discussion of university/college finances should take into
>> account the enormous cost of athletic programs
>>
>
>
> This seems a little out of leftfield, as it were.
>
> What you're saying wouldn't apply to San Francisco State or most every
> other member of the state university system in California. And I don't
> think it would apply to most UC schools either. Who's ever heard of the UC
> Irvine Anteaters?